Scott Stantis editorial cartoon for Wednesday, June 11, 2025, on Don Harmon and need for campaign finance reform. | Scott Stantis/For the Editorial Board
By The Editorial Board | Chicago Tribune
Even lawmakers who’ve been around Springfield a long time were taken aback at the audacity of Senate President Don Harmon slipping a provision into a broader elections reform bill that would have gotten his campaign off the hook for a potential penalty well into the millions.
The Senate president’s problem stems from a March ruling by the Illinois State Board of Elections that his campaign had improperly accepted more than $4 million in donations in 2024 — a finding that stemmed from this newspaper’s questions about the campaign’s fundraising. If Harmon’s appeal of that determination is unsuccessful, his campaign could be subject to a penalty as steep as $6.1 million.
Harmon’s language in the broader reform bill would have deemed the grounds for his campaign’s appeal correct, both going forward and retroactively. House Democrats concluded the provision would have ended the board’s enforcement action, wiping the slate clean for the Harmon campaign.
The Senate president’s attempted slick move only confirmed what many voters already believe about Springfield — that those in power regularly speak in support of good government and clean campaigns but, when push comes to shove, do what they feel is necessary to preserve their authority. The maneuver deserved the condemnation it received — including from members of Harmon’s own party. Thankfully, there was no vote on that elections reform package in the most recent session of the General Assembly.
Beyond the unseemly legislative maneuvering, the Harmon story to our minds underscores how Springfield’s past efforts at campaign finance have failed so miserably. The issue at the heart of Harmon’s woes is a provision in the state’s 2009 campaign finance reform law that was meant to neutralize the effect of big money on Illinois politics. Back then, worries about independently wealthy candidates effectively buying elections led state lawmakers to lift donation limits when “self-funding” got to a certain level so that opponents could compete.
More here.
Leave a Reply